Tony Blair: The amount of money that was spent on truancy specifically was a tiny proportion of the £860 million. Let me explain how it was spent. The vast bulk of it was spent on pupil referral units, in order to educate pupils excluded from schools. When we came to office, there were only 7,000 such places, many of them only for a couple of hours a week. There are now 13,000 such places and those pupils get full-time education. Yes, that money is well spent.

Barbara Follett: Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the bravery of two young firefighters, Michael Miller and Jeffrey Warnham, who lost their lives in Stevenage last Wednesday trying to rescue a resident from a blazing block of flats? Will he also join me in extending condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives in this tragedy?

John Reid: Yes, indeed; and I can tell my hon. Friend that Barnsley, for instance, is now closer to target than it was previously. It is just 3.5 per cent. beneath, and a £61 million increase is going in over the two years; that is a 21 per cent. increase for Barnsely. I hope that that will assist in an area where there has been terrible deprivation. I know that there are a series of one-stop primary care centres, which have improved health care in my hon. Friend's area, and there are other developments. For instance, I think that some additional GPs have come into the area recently.
	We must never forget that although we have spent a lot of time today talking about the allocation of moneys, which is what this is about, at the end of the day this is about improving patient care, and there is no doubt in my mind that all the signs on the ground now are showing that, month by month, we are getting much better patient care. This morning I was in Newham, where five years ago there was one consultant in accident and emergency; there are now five. Where there were 50 nurses there are now 80. Where they were waiting 10 months for a scan only two years ago, now they are waiting less than a week. That is where this money is going—it is going to the patients, and that is as it should be.

Austin Mitchell: This is a very curious Bill; in fact, it is a Bill of two halves. Five clauses deal with the referendum and just five with the treaty—the constitution is actually a constitution masquerading as a treaty—thereby establishing the treaty in British law. Today is the only opportunity that we will get to discuss this issue, because today is the only opportunity to pass legislation on the new European treaty before the referendum. In effect, if we pass the Bill, we pass the treaty. We have prepared the way for implementing it in British law, if the people give their consent in a referendum.
	That is a very curious way to proceed, because as a result the House is not contributing its skill and knowledge, testing the argument or debating the issues. Nor is it examining the treaty at the same length or in the same detail that we examined the far less important and less substantial Maastricht treaty, which had far weaker effects on British polity and did not pose as a constitution. We are being asked to accept something that will change this country's constitution, and which establishes a European constitution affecting this country, on the basis of this Bill and three days' discussion on the Floor of the House. Frankly, that is not good enough for a major change such as this.
	Those of us who do not like the constitution and who will oppose it are being asked to vote for it because we will then get a referendum—which we should have been given anyway from the start. The powers that are being handed over and the roles that are being imposed on us are matters for the people to decide on. They should be able to decide whether to give their consent in any case, so the blandishment that we will get a referendum—if we vote for the treaty—means nothing. A referendum on an issue as big as this is essential. We are talking about the people's power, and they have to give their consent before any of it is handed to Europe, or any other changes are made.
	This approach was taken in order to get the issue out of the way before the general election, and it is true that we have had a lot of fun. The spectacle of my Euro- enthusiastic friends standing on their heads has been fascinating. My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe did so particularly elegantly. First he said, "No, we don't need a referendum; it's unimportant." Now he says that we must have one—but we should have taken that view from the start.
	I support the provision to hold a referendum, but I have some doubts about the wording. A referendum is a conservative device that supports the status quo, and the Bill presents the constitution as the status quo:
	"Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"
	That suggests that the constitution is a fait accompli, that it is pristine, new and gleaming in the distance, that everybody else is accepting it, so it would be churlish to turn it down. It would be better to ask the people whether they want Britain to accept the "proposed" European constitution—a more honest wording, which would favour my side of the argument.
	It is crucial that the referendum include equal funding and equal time for both sides of the argument. That period of equal funding and equal time should be extended, because I do not want the Government telling a series of half truths and distorting the argument in the long period before the referendum. A balance must be maintained for a longer time than just the simple campaign. We do not want my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe rampaging around the country in his red socks putting across an incorrect view of the constitution. I do not want to see a massive outpouring of Government propaganda, and the votes should be published by constituency at the end of the referendum.
	The constitution is an unnecessary, unwanted, unloved product of the European elite that has been foisted on the electorates of Europe, who are being conned into accepting it. The Convention on the Future of Europe started out loaded with Euro-enthusiasts, which was a condition for membership. The American constitution proudly states "We, the people", but all the European constitution can say is, "We, the Euro-enthusiast Euro-elite" think that this or that is self-evident.
	The document is turgid, unreadable, stolid and legalistic. It has all the intellectual excitement of cold porridge; it weighs 2½ lb; and our two representatives on the central councils of the Convention, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), both rejected it.
	I cannot accept the constitution, which is strengthens the centre and is another step towards ever closer union. It also represents further progress towards the creation of a state with a full-time permanent President, a full-time permanent Foreign Secretary and an agreed security and defence policy, which will strengthen the ability of that state to overrule UK law.
	The effects of the constitution are unpredictable and I do not believe any of the forecasts. If anything, I am inclined to believe Martin Howe's argument that the constitution will create uncertainty, which will create more opportunities to overrule British laws because of the surrender of our veto in so many areas. Although my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary might be right that we will do better with qualified majority voting, he might also be wrong. The Government say, "There has been a change of mood in Europe. Britain is now more respected." Mood is, however, effervescent, and the psychology and nature of the European Union has not altered fundamentally.
	Many new clauses have been added to the constitution. One trivial example concerns the common fisheries policy, which originally concerned the marketing of fish. The policy then became a matter of equal access to a common resource, and under the constitution it would become an exclusive competence over the marine biological resources of the sea. The Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament rejected that as unnecessary, but the provision remains. Why? Why should seals or jellyfish, vertebrates or invertebrates, be part of a constitution? Why do they have to be there? Is it some extension of power? What is it all about? It is simply madness on the part of those drafting the constitution.
	Those are my fears. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary tells me that I am wrong. I always listen to him; he is a wise and sage individual and I am a big admirer of his. He tells me that my fears are wrong, that things will not work out that way and that the constitution is a triumph for Britain. Fortunately, he did not come back saying "Game, set and match", as people have said before him. But it is always the job of the British Foreign Secretary to make the best of a bad Eurojob, and my right hon. Friend is falling into that role.
	The constitution does not allow for the uncertainties of the European Court of Justice—whether it will assert its power or whether its composition will be affected. However my right hon. Friend tells me that I am wrong, so let us put the argument to the test. Putting it to the electorate is no way of doing that, because the argument is likely to be detoured into simple half-truths, such as, "If we vote against it we shall be alone in the world," or, "We shall lose 3 million jobs," and all that kind of nonsense. The arguments to be put to the electorate must be prepared through argument and long discussion in the House, by our testing the argument to show what is happening.
	As that is not the case, it will be difficult for me to vote for the Bill. In fact, it will be impossible for me to vote for it, because I am flatly opposed to this European verbiage-mountain of a constitution. My Eurosceptic friends have put it to me that I should maintain the ranks—[Interruption.]

Michael Connarty: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but sadly I totally disagree with him. His analysis was very pessimistic and it may have more to do with the problems that he has had with other parties in Northern Ireland than with the constitution. He missed one thing completely: he was totally wrong to suggest that those in the Commission are the only people who can propose changes and legislation. The new powers given to the European Parliament through co-decision making will strengthen the democratic nature of the European Union; some of us have waited a long time for that and hope to see more of it.
	I welcome the Bill and the proposed referendum, and I welcome the wording of the referendum, because it refers to establishing a constitution for the EU. People should recognise that it will be for the EU, not for Europe. Europe is a much bigger concept that is not necessarily covered just by the people currently in the EU.
	On balance, I welcome the treaty. I say "on balance" because there are still some flaws in it, some of which were created by the Conservative Government. There were good arguments for shared competence on fisheries, for example, which we did not press for because the issue was not covered by any of the original treaties, but it might have been a useful move forward.
	What worries me most is the combination of what I would call the anti-European zealots—those in my party and the group led by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and his colleagues, with their "Be afraid; be very afraid" argument about the European Union—and the humbug and hypocrisy that I hear from those on the Conservative Front Bench. Is it opportunism rather than fear that I smell from them? Is it fear of the United Kingdom Independence party that is making them take the position that they have taken? We should never forget that the Opposition, when in government, not only signed up to a treaty that sold out the UK fisheries policy, but later, under Mrs. Thatcher, traded much of the Irish box to get the rebate, destroying a lot of the British and Scottish fisheries.
	I was disappointed in some contributions. I will refer again and again to the attack by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on the working time directive when I speak to trade unionists and working people in this country. The EU led the way in the working time directive, and it should not be forgotten that it has been a great improver of the working conditions of many people in Britain.
	The right hon. Member for Wells sadly is not here. Again and again the European Scrutiny Committee discusses these matters, and shifting the balance of power of co-decision making to Members of the European Parliament will be welcome. They made it plain in their evidence to the Committee when I chaired it that they saw the constitution as a very positive thing. They included Members from Finland, born only 30 or 40 years ago, and two Members from Hungary, who were born in 1939. They all had a vision of the constitution as a way forward for a balanced Europe.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased that my hon. Friend and I agree on that—as we do on so much.
	However, I remain profoundly opposed to the constitutional treaty. Along with millions of Labour supporters and trade unionists throughout Britain, I shall vote no in the referendum. I have often spoken about EU matters in the Chamber and I shall not dwell on all the issues today. I have reservations other than those that I shall express but other colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have covered them.
	The constitutional treaty is, at its heart, hostile to social democracy. The thrust of today's EU is deeply anti-socialist and the neo-liberal philosophy is being driven forward. There has been a conflict in the EU between the two forces and, unfortunately, the neo-liberal force is winning against the social democratic force. I want to reverse that drift.
	The drive to marketise and privatise public services under the bland-sounding term of liberalisation threatens to turn back the clock and unpick the fabric of social democracy, welfare states and social protection that has transformed the lives of working people in post-war Europe.
	We hear the term "flexible labour markets." A couple of years ago, I was on holiday in Portugal, and although my Portuguese is not good, I understood a sign on a building society that said, "No to flexible labour markets". The Portuguese construction workers understood perfectly what labour market flexibility means. The Swedish no in the referendum happened because Swedish social democrats and trade unionists perceived the threat and voted no.Where countries are already advanced in liberalising service areas, article III-148 of the treaty commits them to
	"undertake liberalisation of services beyond the extent required by the European framework laws".
	It gives the Commission more powers to promote privatisation of key public services.
	Even without the treaty, the new Commission attempted this week to relaunch what it described as the flagging Lisbon agenda. There is serious anxiety, especially among trade unionists, that that will be to the disadvantage of working people. The European Trade Union Confederation, which is now led by John Monks, a good friend and former colleague, stated:
	"This is a disappointing start for the new Commission because it risks presenting Europe as an agent for lower social standards, worse welfare states and poorer environmental standards".
	That is happening in the EU now and the treaty will reinforce it.
	The treaty will consolidate Maastricht and the Single European Act, both of which I opposed. I believed that the Common Market or European Community was jogging along nicely before the Single European Act, which constituted a step change towards a much more neo-liberal construct. That is where things went wrong. I would be happy to revert to the position before the Single European Act and I would probably complain only about the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. We could work happily with our European colleagues on that basis.
	My colleagues have made several points about the referendum. I believe that the Electoral Commission has criticised the wording although it has acquiesced in what the Government have done. We probably will not be able to persuade the Government to make the wording more neutral, but it is significant that the Electoral Commission questioned it.
	It is right to place limits on campaign spending. I remember the 1975 referendum when the amount of money spent on the yes side was grotesque when compared with that spent on the no side. I was on the no side at the time, and I remember well the pathetic resources that we had, compared with the massive resources used to persuade people to vote yes. We want to see more balance this time.
	This referendum should not be held on the same day as other elections. We want a separate day for it, so that people can focus on the issue, rather than thinking, "Oh, well, it's just another election", which might lead them to vote yes or no in a casual way. They need to focus specifically on this important decision that Britain has to make. I also want a constituency count. My constituents know very well what my views are on these matters, but I would like to know what their views are. They might be different from mine, but I would like to know what they think. Every other hon. Member should also be aware of what their constituents are saying, so a constituency count would be important.
	It has been said that the constitutional treaty is just a "tidying-up exercise". If that were the case, it would not be that important if we did not adopt it, would it? We should still have what we have now, and it would not be that significant. However, so much effort is being put into ensuring that the whole of Europe votes for the treaty that I suspect that it is rather more important than just a "tidying-up exercise". There is a lot more to it than that.
	I have said before in debates on European matters that the constitutional treaty includes references to eurozone institutions. Those references should be taken out and voted on separately—

Denis MacShane: Other colleagues have referred directives under the Single European Act. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made a powerful point, but he was talking about what is contained in the Single European Act. As other hon. Members noted in the speeches that they made after he left the Chamber, the thrust of his speech was very much against the Single European Act. That shows the huge danger that we now face.
	The Conservative party is embarked on saying no not just to this treaty, but to the treaty before it, the treaty before that and, above all, the crowning jewel of Lady Thatcher's achievement under the Single European Act, which was to make market economic relations the norm in the European Union. That is buttressed by the social chapter, and in a powerful speech that set the tone for our debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) cited the treaty at length and showed the extent to which it contains references to what citizens want to hear: the guarantee of their social rights and the guarantee of full employment.

James Paice: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the A14 in Cambridgeshire and I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) are in their place this evening. I hope that they will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the road runs through their constituencies as much—in some cases more—than mine and it affects all three of us.
	Before dealing directly with the main issue, I want to express to the Minister in the strongest possible terms my anger at how I have been treated by the Highways Agency over the last few days. On Monday, I requested the latest information on traffic volumes to prepare for this debate. After several prevaricating and clarifying conversations, my office was informed at nearly 5 pm this afternoon that the Minister's office had refused to release the information—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to be suggesting that that is untrue, but if he listens, I will tell him exactly what happened. That fact was confirmed to me by his office as being in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Subsequently, his office claimed that he had given permission for the information to be released, for which I am grateful, but I shall show that I have been given only partial answers to some of my questions. I have to question the basis of a freedom of information Act that apparently relies on a Minister to decide whether or not information should be released.
	The critical issue to all three of us—it has been for many years—is the A14. Prior to 1997, most of the route from the Suffolk border almost as far as Huntingdon was in my constituency. Now, my patch includes only the section east of the Girton interchange. This debate is primarily about the sector from what is known as the Spittals interchange at Huntingdon to the A10 junction in my constituency.
	The road is of local and national significance. It is the main commercial route between the west midlands and our biggest container port in Felixstowe. It is the main north-south route to east London, docklands and the channel crossing. Indeed, it is signposted as such on the A1. Within a few short miles, six lanes become four, then two—yet the traffic does not diminish. The stretch eastward from Girton is also the Cambridge bypass, but it is also a local road, which people have to use to get to and from Cambridge to work or study.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has decided that we must have 47,500 new homes in the Cambridge sub-region, including a new town at Northstowe, a few miles east of the A14. That development cannot go ahead without A14 improvements. That is not just my view; it is the considered view of Cambridgeshire Horizons, the organisation representing all the local authorities, businesses, the university and others who are taking the development forward.
	On the matter of the road conditions, anyone using it will, anecdotally, testify to the problems, particularly daily traffic jams at peak times, often stretching for several miles. Local and national radio traffic flashes feature the A14 probably more than any other road in the country. One constituent wrote to me over the weekend:
	"The journey time to Peterborough can now take anywhere from 1–2 hours. I never know what time I will arrive at the office or what time I will arrive home".
	Those anecdotes are supported by the few statistics that I do have. Traffic volumes between the Hinchingbrooke and Girton interchanges—not quite the whole length that we are discussing—have increased from 63,000 in 1997 to almost 72,000 in 2003. It worries me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Government and the Highways Agency are so anxious not to publish all the figures, presumably because the picture is so awful.
	What I can tell the House, as the county council kindly provided me with the information, is that, sadly, there has been an increase in accidents over the last nine years—not a politically significant period. Particularly on the stretch to which I referred, the number of accidents has risen by almost 40 per cent. I understand that it was particularly bad for two years, in 2000 and 2001, and it improved a little after that. It is now worsening again. Last year, there were 106 accidents in which, sadly, four people lost their lives, 232 were seriously injured and 148 slightly injured. The accident figures show that the accident rate per million vehicle kilometres on this critical stretch of road has increased from 0.13 in 1997, to 0.15 in 2003. That means that the road has become 15 per cent. more dangerous over that period.
	Behind those statistics lie some very personal matters. One of them is the huge cost and distress inflicted on people caught up in the aftermath of accidents. It is not unknown for the road to be closed for many hours; it was closed for a whole day on one occasion last year. I received an e-mail from a consultant working in the accident and emergency department at Addenbrooke's hospital. He said:
	"As an A and E consultant at Addenbrooke's hospital . . . I sadly see all to frequently the so many badly injured people from the notorious A14 motorway. A large number of us doctors, nurses and other staff spend hours, days, weeks and months putting their shattered bodies back together again and hopefully their lives too. Unfortunately, many succumb, leaving behind their families to pick up the pieces."
	The consultant continues:
	"I believe that if the A14 is improved, we will see a dramatic reduction in the number of motor vehicle crashes, with an associated reduction in the number of deaths and seriously injured patients. There is robust scientific evidence that such road improvements and other preventative measures make a difference and lead to fewer and less serious injuries."
	That consultant sees the real impact of what has not been achieved. However, there is also environmental damage. We all know that slow-moving traffic is a serious cause of pollution. There is also the impact on all villages in the area. The county council is spending thousands of pounds on traffic calming measures to deter the many drivers who use the villages as rat runs to avoid the A14. The county council itself is seriously affected in a direct way because it is prevented from making plans to improve various other roads locally because it does not know what is happening to the intersections on the A14.
	A former roads Minister said:
	"the No. 1 priority for East Anglia has been the A14. That dual carriageway trunk road all the way from the M1 . . . to Felixstowe is one of the key strategic routes for the region . . . The A14 is . . . one of the 14 Christopherson priority projects for the European Community and it is eligible for some funding from the trans-European networks budget.—[Official Report, 14 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 1117.]
	That was John Watts, in 1996.
	The present Government inherited a scheme between junction 14 on the M11 and the A1-M1 link—that is, to Huntingdon—and £122.3 million was allocated to meet the standard cost. By 1998, the scheme had been downgraded from "scheme in preparation" to one that was
	"subject to further studies and/or consultation by regional planning conferences."
	In 1996, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire held an Adjournment debate on the A14. The then Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), replied by previewing the multi-modal study that was finally completed in 2001. It recommended extra lanes for most of the existing dual carriageway, with a new southern bypass for Huntingdon. It also recommended a public transport system along the lines of the old St. Ives railway, to take some commuter traffic off the A14 and to serve Northstowe. The present Minister is aware that the county council has proposed a controversial guided bus system, and we await the outcome of the public inquiry.
	The Secretary of State for Transport announced a project worth £490 million to build a three-lane carriageway and a southern bypass for Huntingdon. That was on April Fool's day, 2003—and perhaps that was no coincidence—but we all cheered, and there is no getting away from that. He said that the improved road was expected to open around 2010, and added that the Highways Agency would develop the scheme to the stage where the public could be consulted.
	That was almost two years ago. Just before Christmas 2004, the present Minister said that the public consultation had been put back to allow more time for the Highways Agency to consider an alternative proposal—as if the multi-modal study had not had time and opportunity to consider all options.
	Replying to questions from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, the Minister said that the consultation could start in spring 2005, and that he hoped that slippage would be slight. He told the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that it was incumbent on the Government to "tackle the worst first", and that the greatest problem had to be dealt with first. But when the Cambridge Evening News, which is rightly campaigning for the improvements, phoned the Highways Agency, it was told that there was no priority list and that the agency could not name another A road in more need of upgrading than the A14. That statement was confirmed to me by the Minister's office today.
	It is now February 2005 and, as far as my constituents are concerned, we are getting nowhere. In the view of the Cambridge Evening News, it is "Delay, delay, delay". I look not for pleasantries from the Minister tonight, but for real commitments. He may wish to dismiss my comments as electioneering and seek to reassure us that all is on track. Frankly, nobody will believe him. Every local authority involved in Cambridgeshire Horizons, the chamber of commerce, the local papers and all the businesses in the area are convinced that no progress has been made. As a constituent said to me in an email:
	"No-one in the Highways Agency appears to be taking control of this matter. This would not be allowed in a PLC, heads would roll and so they should."
	Will the Minister tell us when the public consultation will begin? He should by now be able to be absolutely specific—my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has some detail of previous promises on that point. Will a public inquiry be necessary or can the Minister assure us that that can be avoided? If we must have one, when will it be and how much delay would it involve? Most importantly, when will we see some action? Can the Minister confirm that the announcement of £490 million in 2003 is still in the programme? When does he expect soil to be shifted and work to begin? When does he expect the new road to be open? Given the delays that have occurred and the increasing problems that I have described, I believe that the people of Cambridgeshire are entitled to the answers.

David Jamieson: No.
	One reason why the delay has occurred is because we have listened to local residents and are examining the alternatives. The alternative proposal would retain the existing A14 past Huntingdon operating as a dual carriageway trunk road with a new route from Fenstanton to Ellington as a two-lane dual carriageway. The net effect would be to provide four lanes in total in each direction, instead of the three provided by the CHUMMS option.
	An initial examination of the alternative proposal has concluded that it is essential that its merits and impacts are fully and properly assessed. At an early stage, CHUMMS assumed that the existing A14 past Huntingdon would carry local traffic only. I believe that it is important that work at this stage is carried out in sufficient detail to enable the proposals put forward for public consultation to be robust and to minimise the risk of lengthier delays to the scheme later in its programme. Public consultation on proposals for the scheme has therefore been put back a little to allow the Highways Agency time to consider the alternative.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has also attended this debate and also takes an interest in that stretch of road. Her representations to my Department have been constructive, however, and instead of taking the churlish approach adopted by Conservative Members, she has been helpful.
	We expect the consultation to start in spring 2005. There has been a great deal of media coverage about the delay to the scheme. When the scheme was added to the targeted programme of improvements, the Highways Agency aimed to start work in 2008–09. That will be difficult to achieve, but the agency has confirmed that it may still be possible. The scheme has not been delayed by the spending review announcement and was always scheduled for delivery in 2008 onwards.
	I am glad that we have had time to expose some of the arguments. Anybody reading the Hansard report of the debate will reflect on the remarks made by Conservative Members—but were they in office, this debate would not need to take place because that road would not be being improved at all, and I am glad to have had an opportunity to put that point on the record.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eight o'clock.